Why a distro based on Debian? Why not just certify, service and support Debian itself?
We would end up certifying Debian, at least a specific subset of Debian packages, because our policy is not to do development outside of Debian except for configuration and temporary fixes.
Regarding service, we need to be outside of Debian to operate for-profit enterprises. Debian is part of a legal non-profit. So, we created a separate brand, and we will certify service providers to that brand and market the brand with funds from those service providers. But it makes sense to put the free software development in the non-profit, and that's where it will stay - in Debian.
The kernel is 2.6.8 at the moment, from the Debian package. It is so fully modular that it loads the IDE driver before it mounts the root drive - IDE isn't compiled in to the kernel, it's a module. Discover and hotplug are used to detect hardware and load drivers. As far as I can tell, it addresses the problem of normal people adding hardware.
Then you will be happy with UserLinux. We do all of our technical development within the Debian project. Our value-add is support and certification. The only packages in our own repository are configuration, like selecting a list of debian packages and debconf settings for them, and patches that we haven't been able to get into Debian's release (none of those yet).
It comes from user-supported, because anyone can participate in Debian, the development organization we base our system upon. So, if a user doesn't like something about the system, they have the ability to change it directly.
I have at times been tempted to manufacture a noise diode product. Intel CPUs have one, but there seems to be some continuing suspicion regarding whether it has been "influenced" to be less than random.
A verifiable noise diode setup would have to display the same bits in the data that you'd see on an oscilliscope. USB 2 certainly provides enough bandwidth to fill the disk, so that might be a good way to connect it.
I try not to take myself that seriously. I'm afraid I can't agree about Clinton, though. I'd smoke Clinton's damn cigar myself if it would get him back in office. Bush really scares me.
AC wrote: It's not really interesting at all. To use a one-time pad, you have to transmit (SECURELY, mind you) the same amount of keydata as plaintext. In that case, why not use this secure method of transfer to send your data in the first place?
Because you don't have to transfer the cyphertext at the same time as the keytext. You can be reasonably assured that you can move a DVD securely every few years, though you may have long periods of being under surveilance and interception between then. Having moved that DVD, as long as you store it securely you can dribble out a few K at a time in sending messages for a long time.
But it's interesting that with all of the interest in encryption, there is so little interest in the one form of encryption for which a mathematical attack isn't possible.
Thanks
Bruce
It's not "the end of encryption" at all
on
The End of Encryption?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You mean public-key encryption. I fail to see how the one-time pad would be effected by new ways to solve NP-hard problems.
I also have a Toshiba Libretto 100CT, which could be considered a handtop too. Alan Cox had the IBM 110.
Bruce
U101 has been wonderful
on
Handtop Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I purchased a Sony PCG-U101 with the extended battery in Japan when they came out. IMO this was the first functional handtop. Folded, it's about the size of a VHS tape. I put Linux on it right away. I can touch-type on the 14-mm keys after some warm-up. It is the unit I prefer to take when flying. ACPI still doesn't work (something about the restart vector), but otherwise everything is functional. It fits very well in a fanny pack, along with the standard battery, and with those batteries there is enough power to write for 9 hours. That is as much as I'd want to work on any flight. I can walk around with it all day without feeling the weight.
Yes, I think you are missing something. The court found that the univeristy work was infringing because it obliquely served a commercial purpose of the university such as attracting students. There didn't have to be a direct relationship and the non-profit status was held to be immaterial.
Analogously, as somebody who has upon occassion worked as a programmer, my private programming at home could arguably serve the purpose of increasing my experience, and thus my value as a programmer. Thus it would not necessarily be protected.
Indeed, if you read this report it says there is no educational use exception. It's not an exception for curiousity unless it's idle curiousity, entertainment, or (get this) philosophical inquiry. Note that philosophical inquiry used to include scientific inquiry, but the court certainly does not mean that in this case or they would have ruled otherwise!
Note also that the original comment in this thread is regarding Free Software and whether it is non-commercial for purposes of patent law and thus can infringe with impunity. The problem is that we can not make a case that Free Software is not intended for commercial use. Indeed, in writing the Open Source Definition, I very specificaly required that the licenses make commercial use possible. If asked to testify, I'd have to say that.
Sorry, but this is not the case. In the U.S., patents even effect use. Use is clearly given by the law as one of the acts for which the patent holder can bring suit. You are liable for patent infringement by software that you write and use privately in your own home.
Yes, it's a broken system. We have to fix the law.
He's a tech reporter who hasn't investigated the situation much and wrote the first thing that occurred to him. He did a pretty big disservice.
Switching from the GPL to BSD or another license would actually reduce the protection. It doesn't provide any incentive to license the patents for all users. Who do you think is going to develop all of this software if only big companies are able to distribute it legally? We'd be back to proprietary software and proprietary licensing.
That's a good answer, thanks! I had not thought about the ease of spoofing a UDP packet. I'm actually surprised that so far I am not losing any of them between Texas and California.
If I had another machine in the same data center, I'd not be sending UDP over the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
We would end up certifying Debian, at least a specific subset of Debian packages, because our policy is not to do development outside of Debian except for configuration and temporary fixes.
Regarding service, we need to be outside of Debian to operate for-profit enterprises. Debian is part of a legal non-profit. So, we created a separate brand, and we will certify service providers to that brand and market the brand with funds from those service providers. But it makes sense to put the free software development in the non-profit, and that's where it will stay - in Debian.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
A verifiable noise diode setup would have to display the same bits in the data that you'd see on an oscilliscope. USB 2 certainly provides enough bandwidth to fill the disk, so that might be a good way to connect it.
Bruce
Bruce
Geez. I have to teach Mozilla to not fill in "What tasks require high-speed interconnects?" every time I make a posting. Duh.
Bruce
Bruce
Because you don't have to transfer the cyphertext at the same time as the keytext. You can be reasonably assured that you can move a DVD securely every few years, though you may have long periods of being under surveilance and interception between then. Having moved that DVD, as long as you store it securely you can dribble out a few K at a time in sending messages for a long time.
Bruce
Bruce
But it's interesting that with all of the interest in encryption, there is so little interest in the one form of encryption for which a mathematical attack isn't possible.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Yes, I think you are missing something. The court found that the univeristy work was infringing because it obliquely served a commercial purpose of the university such as attracting students. There didn't have to be a direct relationship and the non-profit status was held to be immaterial.
Analogously, as somebody who has upon occassion worked as a programmer, my private programming at home could arguably serve the purpose of increasing my experience, and thus my value as a programmer. Thus it would not necessarily be protected.
Indeed, if you read this report it says there is no educational use exception. It's not an exception for curiousity unless it's idle curiousity, entertainment, or (get this) philosophical inquiry. Note that philosophical inquiry used to include scientific inquiry, but the court certainly does not mean that in this case or they would have ruled otherwise!
Note also that the original comment in this thread is regarding Free Software and whether it is non-commercial for purposes of patent law and thus can infringe with impunity. The problem is that we can not make a case that Free Software is not intended for commercial use. Indeed, in writing the Open Source Definition, I very specificaly required that the licenses make commercial use possible. If asked to testify, I'd have to say that.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Sorry, but this is not the case. In the U.S., patents even effect use. Use is clearly given by the law as one of the acts for which the patent holder can bring suit. You are liable for patent infringement by software that you write and use privately in your own home.
Yes, it's a broken system. We have to fix the law.
Bruce
Switching from the GPL to BSD or another license would actually reduce the protection. It doesn't provide any incentive to license the patents for all users. Who do you think is going to develop all of this software if only big companies are able to distribute it legally? We'd be back to proprietary software and proprietary licensing.
Bruce
Of course, it's always a hardware problem :-)
THERE'S STILL LOTS OF LIFE LEFT IN MY 5-LEVEL BAUDOT MACHINE.
BRUCE
If I had another machine in the same data center, I'd not be sending UDP over the internet.
Thanks
Bruce